Kolkata Court June 1922 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Radha Nath Karmakar and ors. Vs. Emperor
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal573,71Ind.Cas.120
Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.1. This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate to show cause why the convictions of and sentences passed upon the petitioners should not be set aside on the first ground mentioned in the petition; and the first ground is, that 'the trial of the petitioners on charges framed in contravention of Section 233, Criminal Procedure Code, was without jurisdiction and void and the convictions bad and sentences and orders under Section 106 of the Criminal Procedure Code passed on such trial are illegal and fit to be quashed.'2. The charges, (as they appear from the petition) against the petitioners, who are 14 in number, were, first, under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code, secondly, under Section 149 read with Sections 325 and 323, and, thirdly, against some of the petitioners under Section 353 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Vakil for the petitioners raised no objection to the charge under Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code and that is the section und...
Sashi Mukhi Dasi and ors. Vs. Abinash Chandra Halder and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1922Cal279,80Ind.Cas.172
Ghose, J.1. This is an appeal from an order of remand. A preliminary objection has been taken on behalf of the respondents that no appeal lies as the order has not been made under Order XLI, Rule 23 Civil Procedure Code, the Trial Court not having disposed of the suit on a preliminary point. It appears to us that this order was not made under the inherent powers of the Court to order a remand which can be made only where the justice of the case requires it. To say that there is no appeal where the Court acts in contravention of Rule 23 of Order XLI, Civil Procedure Code and reverses the judgment of the Trial Court and remands the case would be to refuse an appeal in every case where the order of remand is erroneous. We are, therefore, of opinion that in this case, the appeal is competent.2. Then with regard to the order complained of, it appears that the learned Subordinate Judge has sent back the case for trial of the second question mentioned in his judgment, namely, whether the plai...
Jasada Lal Pal Chaudhury Vs. Balaram Poddar
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1922
Reported in: 69Ind.Cas.67
1. The subject-matter of the litigation which has culminated in this appeal is a valuable trait of land in the eastern suburb of this city, which admittedly belonged at one time to the Calcutta Electric Supply Corporation. On the 21st December 1901, the Corporation executed a conveyance of the land in favour of one Baburam Saha, member of a family of Sahas, whose relationship will appear from the following of pedigree: BAIDIYANATH SAHA | ________________________________|___________________________ | | | | Gobardhan, Biswanath, Kamalakant, Prohlad, | | | | | Kedar, Mathuranath, Bepin, | | | _______|_____ | Surendra. | | | | ________|_______Mangal. Krishna. | | | | Basanta. Mullick. |__________________________________ | ________________|__________________ | | | | Baburam. Abhoy. Sitanath. Keshub,2. The plaintiff and the defendant are strangers to the family of Sahas, and each of them claims to have acquired exclusive title to the disputed property by purchase at an execution sale. ...
Burn and Co., Ltd. Vs. the Secretary of State for India in Council
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal513,76Ind.Cas.579
1. These appeals arise out of proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act.2. There are a large number of cases which may be divided into three groups. The first group relates to Cases Nos. 2 to 77, 25-A and 80 to 82. They were included in one reference to the Judge and are covered by Appeal No. 158. Then R. A. 237 to 248 arise out of 12 cases before the Collector, and the main question involved in Appeal No. 158 as well as in the 12 Appeals Nos. 237 to 248 relates to the queston of valuation so far as the proprietor's interest is concerned. In the third batch of cases, viz., Appeal Nos. 16 to 31 a rising out of Cases Nos 25 to 40, the question relates to apportionment of the compensation as between the landlord and the tenants and also to the question of increase of valuation so far as the interest of the tenants is concerned.3. It appears that the Land Acquisition Collector valued the interest of the raiyat Sep irately from those of the landlord, the latter being referred to as the pro...
Saradindunath Rai Chaudhuri and ors. Vs. Sudhir Chandra Das and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal116,69Ind.Cas.48
1. This appeal is directed against the grant of Letters of Administration with copy annexed of a Will alleged to have been executed by Sris Chandra Das, a wealthy banker and land-owner of Dacca. The Will is said to have been executed and registered between 9 and 10 A. M. on the 11th December 1904; the testator died between 3 and 4 p. m. on the following day. The names of the members of his family are set out in the following pedigree: PROTAP CHANDRA DAS, married Preomoyi | | Sris Chandra Das, widow Rasheswari | | _______________________________|______________________ | | | | Sarojini, Indumati, Promila, Sukumari, married married, married married Bankim Bipin Chanda Nath Sudhidendra | | | Nath | | Daughter, | | | born ___________|_________ | | after 1904. | | | | | | | | Saradindu, Khoka, | | born born | | after 1904. after 1904. | | | |______________________ | | | __________________|_________ | | | | | Daughter. Bibhuti, born Biraja, born | after 1904. after 1904 |_______________...
Promatha Nath Mullick Vs. Pradyumna Kumar Mullick and anr.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal99,76Ind.Cas.985
Greaves, J.1. The plaintiff in this suit seeks a declaration that he is entitled to remove certain deities named respectively Thakur Sree Sree Radha Shamsunderjee, Thakurani Sree Sree Radharanee and a Saligramsila known as Sree Sree Rajrajeswar from the Thakurbari, where they are ordinarily located, to his residence during his turn of worship.2. The deities above named Were established by one Moti Lal Mullick, the grand father of the plaintiff and of the second defendant and the great-grandfather of the fast defendant. During Moti Lal's lifetime the deities were located la his family dwelling house in Pathuriaghatta Street Moti Lal died in 1846 leaving a widow Sreemutty Rangomoni Dassi and an adopted son, Jadu Lal Mullick aged two years. Moti Lal left a Will dated the 3rd September 1846 and thereby appointed his wife so long as Jadu Lal did not attain the age of 20 malik or proprietor and attorney for the protection and care of the whole of his estate. And he left certain funds out of ...
Golam Rahman Mistri and ors. Vs. Gurdas Kundu Choudhri and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal505,76Ind.Cas.586
1. This is an appeal by the defendants in a suit in ejectment. The case for the plaintiffs is that the defendants are purchasers of a non-transferable tenancy, and are, consequently, in occupation as trespassers. The defendants resist the claim on the ground that the tenancy is transferable. The Court of first instance came to the conclusion that the tenancy constituted a transferable tenure and in this view dismissed the suit. Upon appeal, the Subordinate Judge held that the tenancy was not a tenure but an agricultural holding and must accordingly be deemed to be non-transferable. In this view, the Subordinate Judge has decreed the suit. On the present appeal, we have been invited to consider the terms of the lease granted by the landlords to the tenant on the 21st January, 1910.2. The tenancy was in respect of an area of 9 bighas 7 3/4 cottahs of land. Consequently, the presumption applicable to tenancies in respect of an area exceeding 100 bighas is not applicable. The lease authori...
Jogendra Krishna Roy and anr. Vs. Shafar Ali and ors.
Court: Kolkata
Decided on: Jun-01-1922
Reported in: AIR1923Cal373,76Ind.Cas.382
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs in an action in ejectment. The disputed lands are comprised in a revenue-paying estate which was purchased by the plaintiffs on the 6th March 1916 at a sale for arrears of revenue. On the nth February 1918 the plaintiffs commenced this action to eject the defendant as a trespasser. The Courts below have dismissed the suit. The defendant was a cultivator who had acquired a right of occupancy many years before the suit and was recorded as an occupancy raiyat in the Record of Rights finally published in 1895. On the 16th July 1901 he took from the then proprietors a permanent lease under what was described as a taluki pottah. There is no controversy that if the defendant was an occupancy raiyat at the date of the commencement of this litigation, he was protected from eviction under Section 37 of Act XI of 1859. But the plaintiffs have contended that the effect of the permanent lease granted to him by the proprietors on the 11th July 1901 was to extin...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›